Designing a better Democracy

[Ayatollah So]

Examples of decent voting system are Condorcet voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) and Approval voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) (systems like Single Transfererable vote, which are commonly seen as improvements to the current voting systems, still have flaws such as issues of tactical voting).

Condorcet looks great. But Single Transferable vote, which in the US is more often called Instant Runoff Voting, would still be a big improvement on First Past the Post, not to mention plurality-take-all systems, which are common here.

 

[Caprice]

It used to be that our Senate was elected rather indirectly, by the State Legislature, instead of popular vote. But that was changed almost a century ago...

The Senate should revert to that method. Senators are not supposed to represent the people, they are there to represent the interests of their state's government.

 

[mdwh]

So, let's get rid of political parties altogether and the principle of voting on people. In the end I don't care if "John" or "Karen" or "Tom" is minister of <whatever-department> as long as (s)he does the job. The opinion on the economy, health-service etc. of the minister of Education is of no (or little) importance to being able to be a good minister of Education. And the goals of the Education system are to be voted on, not the face working on it.

Maybe, but I'm confused as to how that helps what I said about? If there are more than two choices (whether you're voting on people, parties or policies - and indeed, in the UK we do vote on people rather than parties), you still have the problems I said about.

 

[mdwh]

At current Blair is slowly trying to fill the Hosue Of Lords with his cronies, and i'd take elected officials over appointed ones any day.

Well there are other possibilities to appointment-by-the-Prime-Minister, so that doesn't mean that election is the best option. I mean, even selecting them at random (sort of like jury service - no one would suggest that trials should be conducted by referundum would they? So why is it so good for other things?) would do well I think, if you don't like the old hereditary system (as I didn't).

 

[mdwh]

Condorcet looks great. But Single Transferable vote, which in the US is more often called Instant Runoff Voting, would still be a big improvement on First Past the Post, not to mention plurality-take-all systems, which are common here.

Just to expand some more on the flaws of it:

Unfortunately the site http://electionmethods.org which used to describe it well is now offline.

But IIRC, the problem is that in some circumstances, you still get problems where tactical voting is necessary. Ah, here we are:

http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE15/P2.HTM

So bizarrely, voting 1st choice for a party may cause them to lose!

Arguably, it's still better than what we currently have, as you say, though there are two issues:
- That tactical voting is possible, but confusing, may lead voters confused as to how to vote to get their preferred choice; at least now it's fairly obvious in which situations to vote tactically.
- That people may lose faith if we change the voting system, and then say "But actually, we need to change to a different system again". If we're going to change, we might as well do it properly.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Those methods of electing people surely are interesting. Not that easily understood, but fascinating.

@mdwh: I get the impression you and I are discussing different elements of Democracy. I am talking about Democracy failing to focus on long-term problems due to its nature and you seem to be talking about electing politicians differently (more fairly (?)). It is possible that we are discussing the same element of Democracy, but I fail to see how the election methods you showed improves the politicians' focus on long-term problems and solutions.

 

[mdwh]

Those methods of electing people surely are interesting. Not that easily understood, but fascinating.

@mdwh: I get the impression you and I are discussing different elements of Democracy. I am talking about Democracy failing to focus on long-term problems due to its nature and you seem to be talking about electing politicians differently (more fairly (?)). It is possible that we are discussing the same element of Democracy, but I fail to see how the election methods you showed improves the politicians' focus on long-term problems and solutions.

Well, I was just saying a general other way that our democracy could be improved. Not related at all to the specific issue of long-term planning, but I figured that the thread had already moved from just discussing this topic (eg, suggestions like proportional representation, or requiring a test for people to be able to vote, or whether the house of lords should be elected, aren't specifically related to the long term issue either).

 

[The_Harbinger]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
the average voter." Winston Churchill.
What are the "long term goals" of the average voter?

 

[ComradeDavo]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with
the average voter." Winston Churchill.
What are the "long term goals" of the average voter?

That is a much overused quote that I think isn't revelavant to todays society, as with mass media todays 'average' voter is alot more informed then back in Churchill's day.

As for what the 'long term goals' are of the average voter, I would say that for the majority it is a decent life for themselves and for their family.

 

[The_Harbinger]

That is a much overused quote that I think isn't revelavant to todays society, as with mass media todays 'average' voter is alot more informed then back in Churchill's day.

More informed or more disinformed?

 

[ComradeDavo]

More informed or more disinformed?

More informed.

Whilst they might get fed alot of inccorect information, in general the average voter knows alot more about the world and politics then they did in 1950.

 

[Kayak]

More informed.

Whilst they might get fed alot of inccorect information, in general the average voter knows alot more about the world and politics then they did in 1950.

I think that is only true of the average voter, not the average citizen. At least, not in the US, not on the political front.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think that is only true of the average voter, not the average citizen. At least, not in the US, not on the political front.

Hmm ok maybe, I am looking it from a European point of view of course.

 

[The_Harbinger]

Whilst they might get fed alot of inccorect information, in general the average voter knows alot more about the world and politics then they did in 1950.

"We believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death."
Albert Einstein.
So does modern history prove him wrong?

 

[Kayak]

Hmm ok maybe, I am looking it from a European point of view of course.

I admit to feeling quite cynical at the moment, but the level of ignorance around here can be appalling, and I live in a "blue" state.

I really do think that only a democracy with well informed citizens (on the whole) can succeed over the long term. Heck with the voting system.

 

[Kayak]

"We believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death."
Albert Einstein.
So does modern history prove him wrong?

Well looking at the difference between the US and Europe, he is being proven right.

 

[Whomp]

I really do think that only a democracy with well informed citizens (on the whole) can succeed over the long term. Heck with the voting system.

I'm confused because I am mostly likely ignorant.
Tell me if I'm missing something?

Are you all saying that a person with less intelligence should not be allowed to vote? Sounds elitist. That would seem to change it to a situation of "by the smart people for the smart people"?

To make a better informed decision I think the populous needs to have access. Bring the representatives to the people, locally, not away from the people.

 

[The_Harbinger]

Are you all saying that a person with less intelligence should not be allowed to vote?

"Informed" and "intelligent" are words with different meanings...
And aren't the US "the best democracy money can buy"?

 

[Whomp]

"Informed" and "intelligent" are words with different meanings...

What determines whether a person is informed? And according to whom? What if the person is extremely well informed on 3 topics that they truly care about but are not interested in 7 others that don't care about. Are they considered informed?

Intelligence is quantifiable though informed seems very vague to me.

And aren't the US "the best democracy money can buy"?

What does the US have to do with this thread? The thread asks how to "design a better democracy".

 

[The_Harbinger]

What does the US have to do with this thread? The thread asks how to "design a better democracy".

United States of America are fighting all over the World for it (the better democracy)!

"By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand." Jeorge W. Bush, 2002.

Do you disagree?